Publication ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS

  1. Ethics in scientific publications is a system of standards of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, experts, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of the journal "NOT" in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications ( Guidelines on Good Publication Practice ).
  2. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor, as well as members of the editorial board and expert commission of the scientific journal "NOT":
  • are responsible for deciding whether to publish. The scientific content of the work under review and its scientific significance should always form the basis of the decision to publish;
  • must impartially evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors;
  • should not provide other persons with information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for persons who participate in the professional assessment of this manuscript. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
    1. Ethical principles for editors:
  • the editor has the exclusive right to accept the manuscript for publication or reject it. The manuscript may be rejected by the editor at any stage if there is a good reason for this (the subject of the article does not correspond to the scope of the journal; the article is obviously of low scientific quality; the article was previously published in another publication; the submitted materials reveal a fundamental contradiction to the ethical principles adhered to by the journal) . The editor accepts an article for publication in accordance with his conviction that it meets the requirements of the journal. Editors must ensure that the materials they publish comply with international standards of scientific and publication ethics;
  • editors must guarantee the high quality of materials published in the journal and their substantive integrity, as well as publish corrections, clarifications, and apologies in cases where such a need arises.
    1. Ethical principles for authors:
  • Authors must provide an objective justification for the scientific significance of their research work. Review articles may be published if there are original conclusions and/or recommendations;
  • The authors guarantee that the articles submitted to the editor are original, and that if other works are used in the article, this is properly indicated. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any of its forms: verbatim copying without reference to the source, paraphrasing without reference to the source, as well as self-plagiarism (if elements of the article were previously published, the authors are required to refer to this). Knowingly false and unreliable information is unacceptable;
  • The authors guarantee that articles submitted to the editor are not under consideration in other publications. Submitting an article to multiple publications simultaneously constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable;
  • the author presenting the article must ensure that all co-authors (if any) agree with its final version and its submission for publication in the journal;
  • The source of research funding, if any, must be declared and indicated, and its role in conducting the research and/or preparing the article must be outlined.
    1. Ethical principles for reviewers (experts):
  • reviewers (experts) should agree to review only those articles for which they have sufficient knowledge to evaluate and which they can review in a timely manner;
  • the reviewer (expert) must refuse to prepare a review if he participated in any work related to the preparation of the article or in the studies described in it;
  • the reviewer (expert) must respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the article or review on time or after review to anyone except those persons who are authorized by the editors (for example, the editor);
  • the reviewer (expert) does not have the right to use the information obtained during the review for his own benefit, for the benefit or to discredit other persons or organizations;
  • the reviewer (expert) must inform the editor about a possible conflict of interest related to the review of the article, or seek advice from the editor if he is not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest;
  • the assessment must be carried out objectively, the conclusions must be clearly formulated and reasoned so that the authors can use them to improve the work.